Posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 15:39:02
In reply to Re: yes, I think so..., posted by morganator on June 25, 2010, at 11:54:08
Morganator-I totally agree with you. I've noticed trends toward prevention and intervention, but there are also other factors that lead me to think those strategies will be more signifcant in the future.
When you consider the high prevalence of mental illness of those incarcerated, it becomes more noticable. The penal system has been slowly tranforming from punishment to rebilitation, focusing on prevention and intervention. Mental health courts are a good example. The large proportion of inmates who have comorbid substance abuse problems goes without saying...but is also relevant to the non-incarcerated mental health population...Substance abuse resources are pretty scarce and unerrated, imo. For the incaracerated-many of those inmates have children; also many of those inmates have victims and are victims themselves. Prevention needs to imfiltrate all areas of society--public schools can be a useful tool outside of medical practice.
I have noticed more prevention-oriented studies lately; those I have seen tend to be more recently dated. One I just recently came across copared those at risk for schitzophrenia who had early intervention for schitzophrenia with those who did not. It measured long-term functioning such as employment, relationships,etc. I don't remember what the particular results were, but studies measuring the effects of prevention or intervention can take years...With the increase in our statistical capabilities, and changes in government, social, technology, etc., I think we are going to see many changes to the mental health system (aside from just the bio aspect) and more emphasis on prevention as you stated.
There is an increased focus on risk management and prevention in clinical practice for non-mental health issues too. If the benefits can be empirically shown to outweigh costs of prevention strategies, it will eventually translate directly to the economic sector-insurance companies-employers, which is necessary to transform mental health care. It takes a while for research to translate to practice as you know, and I agree we will see more of this in clinical practice in the future. If prevention reduces costs in the long run, it could have an impact, maybe not as much although no one can truly predict it, but similar to the incentives that currently influeces the high prevalence of pharmacology-based treatments.
When I look at the mental health system holistically, I definitely think part of the problem is the seperation of psychology and biology, among other things. With more integration of endocronolgy, neurology, cognitive science, psychology...and more factors which reveal links to mental wellness, along with social research and government incentives, I think the seperation is integrating...At the same time, the accumulation of knowledge and our ability to keep up with it can lead to more branching off of the disciplines--I see that as a potential disadvantage; however, data management innovations and other strategies are possible. Things are slowly, but surely, changing.
If most mental health professionals agree with the bio-psycho-social model of mental illness, I feel optimistic about that line of thought translating to clinical practice as a result of changes/advances in research, technology, government, and our social beliefs.
Of course everything is evolving and changing...and the bio aspects are a huge influence and very important, but I wanted to say I happen to agree with you about increases in the psychological and prevention areas, and the overall integration of those important aspects of mental health. I welcome and anticipate these changes and am curious about the future of mental health treatments.
Thanks for bringing light to this topic. :)
poster:violette
thread:951979
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20100615/msgs/952272.html